Statistics are meaningless given that the Left makes it say whatever they need it to say.

ceruleanbill

Many people resent the intrusion of a nosy regulatory government into their private lives. This Gallup finding suggests that many women feel the same resentment about the intrusion of a nosy regulatory government into their private parts. I imagine that they would say, as Ella Fitzgerald once sang, “Ain’t Nobody’s Business But My Own”. Certainly, a suggestion that’s in line with desires for a smaller government, yes?

Mike Devx

I am still not going to state where I think the GOP “needs to go” in the next few years. I’ve noticed that among the hundreds of prescriptions for GOP success that I’ve been reading, without exception the bromides go like this:

1. “I have held positions X,Y,Z for many years now.”
2. “Now that the GOP has lost this election, to win the future, the GOP must adopt… positions X, Y, and Z.”

Without exception, that is all that I am seeing. Frankly, it’s not worth the time it takes to write it, nor to read it.

Not one of these people, including all the serious bloggers, has concluded that the GOP must downplay their own philosophical positions, on any issue, in order to “broaden the tent”. I am not talking about abandoning philosophical convictions; I am talking about deliberately choosing not to seek LEGISLATIVE solutions for the short term for divisive issues. I’m talking about continuing the culture war with all necessary aggression; but deliberately downplaying the legislative war, for a while, until the culture wars have swung more in our direction.

The Democrats won “The War On Women” in 2012. I am not going to offer solutions – it’s been less than two weeks since the election, for crying out loud – but I will say that I absolutely do believe one thing: if we play exactly the same political game in the future that we played in 2012, we will lose “The War On Women” again to the Democrats. Until we make progress in the culture wars themselves, we will lose over and over. Without progress in the culture wars, we will have to change *something* politically. We should all think seriously about *what* needs to change.

Charles Martel

The semantic game that some women are playing with themselves here is interesting. Government “intrusion” into the decision to kill an unborn child is a no no, but government insistence that the rest of us pay for their private decisions to have “safe” and consequence-free sex isn’t.

My feeble conservative mind is perplexed.

SADIE

Political marriage counseling? I have no idea how politically-mixed marriages work and how the children interact with each parent – it may offer some insight to resolutions.

Mike Devx

The central question of “The War On Women”, of course, surrounds abortion.

I definitely have an exact opinion on every issue surrounding abortion. But I was wrong on so many things in this year (2012) politically, that my personal opinion and philosophy shouldn’t be worth a hill of beans to anyone but me.
So I won’t waste time stating that long-ish paragraph.

But I would like to pose a thought question, in the form of a media interviewer and a candidate for national political office:

Interviewer: “Suppose a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant with the child of the rapist. The woman wishes to have an abortion. She does not want the rapist’s child growing in her womb. What is your position on this?”

Candidate: “My personal philosophy is that every life is sacred. Life is sacred, and life begins at the moment of conception. That child growing in the woman’s womb is innocent of all wrongdoing. It would be a tragedy to abort that child, because every abortion is a tragedy.”

Interviewer: “You are a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. If presented with a bill that outlaws abortions in the case of rape, would you vote for it?”

ANSWER 1:
Candidate: “Well, my philosophical position is clear. And I believe that my vote must match my philosophical position. I have always stated that, and I believe it. My integrity is important to me, and this is a question of integrity. My vote on any issue should always match exactly what I personally believe to be best. My position on this is clear. Therefore, yes, I would vote for that bill.”

ANSWER 2:
Candidate: “Well, my philosophical position is clear. However, I want to represent all the people of this State, and only 15% of them agree with me. The vast majority want a woman who has been raped to be allowed to abort the resulting pregnancy, if it occurs. I do not agree with that, but I understand that that is their position, and I promise that if such a bill were presented to me, I would abstain from voting on it. I could not vote against my philosophy, understand. But I would definitely abstain from that vote, because the people of my State clearly are against it.”

Which answer is better? I honestly do not know, and I’m not playing games when I say that. But the fact that there is a political choice to be made is clear.

When I say I don’t know which answer is best, I mean that I can see both answers as perfectly acceptable. I’m personally willing to “be in the wilderness”, losing election after election, if it means winning the culture war in the end. If the best way to win the culture war is to follow the path of total integrity (1), then we should all do so. If the best way to win is to make calculated political decisions (2), then we should do so. But as to WHICH is best in the long run, I really, honestly, don’t know. It’s one of the things I’m definitely thinking a lot about these days.

Ceruleanbill — I assume your comment is serious, so I’ll try to give it a serious answer. The Obama ads about Romney attacked him for two points:

(1) He does not believe that the federal government should fund Planned Parenthood. That position certainly is consistent with small government and obviously is in no way an “intrusion of a nosy regulatory government into their private parts.”

(2) He believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned. The ads make no attempt to identify what he would replace it with. Let’s assume, however, for the sake of argument, that he would support elimination of government funding for all abortions, which is certainly consistent with small government and not an “intrusion of a nosy regulatory government into their private parts.”

In addition, for the sake of argument, let’s assmue he also supports making abortions illegal. though that probably overstates the case. This is an intrusion. Making anything illegal is, in some sense, an intrusion into the freedom of the people who want to do that thing. The question is whether this particular intrusion is justified.

Not many people would object to laws making murder, rape, kidnapping, etc. illegal on the basis that they are intrusions of a nosy regulatory government. The intrusions are well justified by the evil such laws seek to oppose. So, in the end, the question is whether the intrusion of making abortion illegal is justified in the same way. How you answer that question probably depends on the extent to which you view the taking of an unborn life as an evil. If you view that unborn life as a child (as CM does above) the evil certainly would justify the intrusion. If, on the other hand, you view the unborn life as something less than a human child then you may view the intrusion as “nosy” and unwarranted. This is a philosophical and moral question that has no objective answer.

Certainly, the issue is not a matter of small government versus large government, as your comment would make it out to be. It is an issue of how one views an unborn life.

MikeD, interesting question, and it goes to the heart of a representative democracy. Whenever the view of the representatives different from those of their constitutents, should the representatives vote their view or that of the people they represent?

View 1 — The representatives have a duty to apply their own independent judgment to each issue that comes before them. In effect, representativeness is viewed as a check on unfettered democracy. Of course, the representatives are ultimately accountable to the constitutents at the next election, but in the meantime, they should do what they believe is best for those constitutents, even if that is not what the constitutents want.

View 2 — The representatives have a duty to vote as their constitutents wish. Rather than being a check on democracy, representativeness is merely a convenience. It would be impractical for all the people to vote on every issue, so they elect representatives to do their voting for them. But, the representatives are really no more than surrogates for their constitutents and must vote as a majority of those constitutents would vote if they could do so.

I don’t have an answer, either. I suspect that the thinking of the founding fathers was more toward the first view, while the thinking of many, if not most, people today would lean toward the latter. What do the readers here think?

JKB, honestly, I never saw that in any of Obama’s ads. Could you be more specific?

Mike Devx

Thx for answering, Don, and I agree, given the precision on my thought question, I agree with you completely. The truth is, no politician is likely to answer exactly in either manner I proposed. I just wanted to boil it down. a skilled politician would dress the answer up amazingly.

And there are many other answers. A candidate could say – and believe – that it is an issue best left to the States (after Roe v Wade is overturned), and therefore, he or she would vote No, because it is not an issue to be decided nationally. And so on – there are many possible answers.

Politically, my thought question alludes to more than just whether you must vote precisely according to your convictions, or solely be a rubber-stamp based on your constituents’ preferences. The fact is, as a politician, you’re in an election to win it. And some of your personal positions may lose you significant votes. My thought question didn’t precisely go here, but the question is, do you deliberately alienate people who agree with you on almost everything – especially if you believe it risks your election – or do you choose your political positions based on politics being “the art of the possible”, balancing what is possible and which voters you can afford to lose yet still likely win the election, and be in a position to enact MOST of what you wish for?

Cheesestick

MikeD, I believe your thought experiment is missing an element that we all know exists in the real world. Let’s say the politician gives your Answer #1 or #2 to the reporter. Regardless of how the viewer/voter might interpret his meaning, you now have a reporter that will turn to the camera and earnestly summarize how they, the reporter, interpret what the pol said and it goes something like this: “As you can see people, this Republican pol – like all the Republicans in his party – supports rapes & wishes to legislate that raped women be forced to carry the resulting pregnancy to term.”

Perhaps not quite that obvious, but this is basically what they did. I believe that if the Republican party completely denounced all previous positions on abortion and from this point forward, only ran former abortion doctors for any seats, the press would still flood the airways with these same ridiculous claims. It is no different than the rAAAcist claim they make for every other position we have. Don’t think it is a good idea to keep piling debt on top of our current $16 trillion? Well that’s because you hate black people. Don’t think lavishing the poor with minuscule stipends that will ultimately just keep the welfare class right where they are? Clearly, you just can’t stand the thought of having a black man as our president. Planning to vote for a black Republican? Obviously you are trying to hide your KKK membership by running an Uncle Tom.

Cheesestick, it’s not entirely the media’s fault, especially in a Presidential election, where billions are spent for ad time in which the candidates can say whatever they want. In their ads, the candidates get to speak directly to the people, without the media filter. These ads, which run on the most popular entertainment shows, reach more people more often, than any news media. And the truth of the last election is that Obama’s ads were far better done, far more persuasive, (far more dishonest, but that’s a different issue) than Romney’s. Blaming the media accomplishes nothing. And, in this particular case, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

It also accomplishes nothing to say, “You are trying to make a reasonable argument to unreasonable people.” The truth is that most Americans are quite reasonable people. Granted, those on the far left and those in leadership positions in the Democrat party are pushing their own agenda and are not open to reason. But the majority of voters are reasonable people. I’m convinced that a well-done direct appeal to the voters would have won this election easily.

MikeD, another great question. I’d answer that you generally compromise positions but not principles. My favorite example is in immigration, where the Republican party could radically alter its position without changing its principles at all. Even a position permitting unlimited legal immigration is completely consistent with core conservative values as I understand them.

Where your principle does unalterably conflict with the will of your constitutents, you have a different problem. In that case, I support the “Art of the possible” approach, as you call it. We can accomplish nothing at all if we don’t get elected. Being able to do 90%, 75%, or even 50% good is better than being able to do no good at all.

Of course, if the candidate would have to compromise most of his/her principles because most of them conflict with those of the constitutents, then the candidate should run a campaign to persuade, more than to win. It does no good, in a left-leaning district, to run as a leftist-lite. The real leftist will beat you every time. But, in a district in which the candidate is otherwise electable, but has a conflict with a key group of one-issue voters, I have no problem with the idea of compromising on that issue to win the election. By the way, your answer #2 would be inadequate. The candidate would have to be willing to vote against his/her belief, not merely abstain. The one-issue voters will always vote for the candidate that will support their position over the candidate that merely will not oppose it. The only way to get past the one issue is to defuse it entirely.

Libby

Obama and his campaign managed to convince these women that Romney didn’t just not support abortion, but that he intended to somehow prohibit them from accessing all contraceptives. Again and again, his campaign and the press phrased the issue as “women’s access to healthcare.” They reinforced this point by hammering Romney’s desire to stop government funding of Planned Parenthood (where women get contraceptives, and the false claim of providing mammograms, in addition to abortions) and ending Obamacare, which has been larded up with freebies for women (free contraceptives, breast feeding supplies, etc.). Romney missed the opportunity to clarify that he only wished to stop bankrolling contraceptives, not prevent access to them (provided women pay for them as they had prior to Obamacare).
On a side note, in discussing the election results with my sister, she mentioned that all of the 20-something kids she works with saw Romney as the guy who would take away their free stuff. We’ve seen a lot of discussion about poor people such as the Obamaphone lady being bought off, but there’s a whole non-poor generation that grew up in an environment of getting stuff like music, apps, videos, games, homework, etc. off the internet for free. For these kids, it’s not a giant leap for them to apply this expectation to other aspects of their lives, such as abortions & the pill (especially after years of having access to free condoms everywhere). Obama masterfully created enough free stuff for a variety of constituencies to guarantee that any challenger could be painted a Scrooge.

Mike Devx

Cheesestick, I agree completely. Media bias – in many cases it is conscious and deliberately deceitful – is another piece of the puzzle. I’m coming to the conclusion that the media were far more powerful this year than I’d been willing to accept. I’d thought they’d mostly marginalized themselves by now. But they’re still too powerful.

Until the GOP and conservatives understand – with a deep, soul-searing understand – that the media for the most part are their ENEMY, and treat every interaction with them as an interaction with ENEMIES – they will continue to use.

A conservative, and even any member of the GOP, must accept this basic truth, or else continue to lose.

Go ahead and rationalize if you wish, but I’m done with it. Almost every member of the mainstream media is my enemy. They have declared war on me. I know it.

Bill Maher has declared war on me:
BILL MAHER: The other good news is the Republicans are taking the loss well. Who am I kidding? Are you serious? No. It’s like half the nation just found out that their wife is f–king a black guy. That’s what really happened.

I’m the racist, you see. Even though in truth every time Maher wants to insult all conservatives, be reaches for the most offensive racial slurs possible. Half the nation is a white male whose wife is being f*cked by black guys, eh, Billy? You’re an idiot. But you have declared war on ME. I see it, and I know it.

It’s the culture war, and we’d all better stop just laying back and taking the abuse. It’s time to get right back in their f*cking faces and hit them just as hard.

The same thing goes for Israel by the way. The steady drip drip drip within the culture war has a subtle but unmistakable message:

“There is something wrong with Israel. There’s nothing wrong with the Palestinians or the Arabs.”

“There is something wrong with Israel. There’s nothing wrong with the Palestinians or the Arabs.”

“There is something wrong with Israel. There’s nothing wrong with the Palestinians or the Arabs.”

Drip drip drip. Steady drip, for forty years or more. If you think that doesn’t have an extremely powerful effect, you’re crazy. It’s the culture war, and we have been downplaying it for decades. We must understand how defeated we are in this war, because we are refusing to fight it. And I don’t mean complaining about it here. I mean getting right back in their faces and hitting back just as hard.
IF you are hit with sneering disgust at high volume, you’d better hit back with the same sneering disgust at JUST AS HIGH A LEVEL. It’s time to stop being civilized in public.

MikeD, much as I don’t think the media decided the election, I do agree with much of what you said. But Maher is a terrible example. He’s primarily a comedian and he makes no more pretense of being neutral and objective than Rush, or, say, Dennis Miller (to take another comedian) does. The problem is not Maher. You’re right, he’s an idiot and we should treat him like one. The problem is the supposedly objective media. And that’s often a lot harder to fight back against, since it is substantially more subtle.

SADIE

And that’s often a lot harder to fight back against, since it is substantially more subtle.

Blaming the media accomplishes nothing. And, in this particular case, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
It also accomplishes nothing to say, ”You are trying to make a reasonable argument to unreasonable people.”

So what are you going to do? Make your own ads? Better ads then all the Republican professional ad makers were able to make w/ the millions of donated dollars they had at their disposal?

You can blame yourself if you want, but I did my part by donating a little money. It was up to the campaign to get the best ads they could on the air. I don’t see how it really helps to dissect those efforts unless you are in a position to make more effective ads in the future. And if you need to cast me as an extra, let me know. Beyond that, I don’t have any control over that process. But I do think calling out the media is slowly bringing them down. Look at any survey of people’s opinions and most people will say they do not trust the media and believe them to be very biased. Plus look at how the left took down Bush. They literally complained non-stop and the constant barrage of anti-Bush/anti-right/anti-USA rhetoric actually does have an affect over time. Ex. Bush on the ship w/ the “mission accomplished” sign in the back. Bush said the war was over that day right? Well, no he didn’t say that at all. The media did it for him….and, so it is now cemented in the mind of probably 55-60% of voters that Bush said the war was over. I’m sure you saw the video after the last election called “how Obama got elected”? Interviews showed that voters knew practically nothing about congressional candidates, or even Obama or Biden, but all of them knew both facts & falsehoods (which they believed to be facts) about Sarah Palin. It takes a lot of voices & a great deal of repeating to accomplish this. I am not saying we should be amplifying lies; but certainly we should be trying to do the same w/ the truths about the media and the Democrats.

Mike Devx

DQ, I might just be going through a few days of anger, thus changing my mind about the need to start fighting back with energy and aggression in the culture wars.

But I do blame Maher and I do blame the media. As for Maher, there is probably some kind of a good joke to be made about white male married Republicans freaking out as if black men were f*cking their wives. But I look at the steady stream of what he (and all of them) say. His “joke” was about HALF THE NATION. And all their jokes and comments are like this. The underlying them is that all conservatives (and GOP’ers) are racists. THAT is the drip drip drip of the culture war, not the actual joke itself.

It is the same with the media. It’s not merely the specific activities surrounding any one election, it’s the 24-7 bias, the steady drip drip drip. There’s not much objectivity left in the media, but it doesn’t seem to matter, not anymore.

The Democrats have it right. They only attack when someone threatens their dominance in the culture war. Sarah Palin in 2008. Allen West and Mia Love in 2012. They haven’t quite found the handle on Marco Rubio yet, but not for lack of trying. Every chance they get they go after Rush Limbaugh. You don’t think they’ve succeeded in demonizing Rush Limbaugh? Conservatives laugh it off, but Democrats are actually quite content. Rush is demonized. They HAVE succeeded with a fairly large number of people who haven’t heard five minutes of a Rush radio broadcast, and yet think they know everything there is to know about Rush. We think they haven’t succeeded? Oh yes they have. We are not looking at this correctly; we are NOT fighting the culture war. We are losing, and yet we continue to be complacent about it.

The GOP lies back and takes it, we all lie back and take it. I think before the election I would have agreed with every word you said, but I don’t anymore. We are too quiet about it; too calm about it; too reasonable about it. Like the frog in the boiling pot of water, we’ve come to accept the poisonous culture – poisonous to US – as the new normal.

There was a video near this last election of a legislator candidate on TV with CNN’s Soledad O Brien. He was extraordinarily confrontational to her on her agenda, and she couldn’t believe he was not letting her get away with it. Hopefully I will find the link and post it as an example of what these people SHOULD be facing from us as our standard response to their manipulations and deceit. In one way it is very uncomfortable to me to envision a steady diet of such uncivilized, raucous back and forth as coming from my side; but I’ve decided it’s the only way to get back in the game. Calm, rational, quiet has completely failed.

Mike Devx

The short and sweet version of what I’m trying to say: We have to become populists and demagogues in the public arena. “we” meaning the public face of conservatism in the culture war.

The “American people” say they want compromise and conciliation. I say no. The situation is just as it has been with negative advertising. 90% of the people say they hate negative advertising, but they don’t. Negative advertising WORKS. The more extreme it is, the more it works. The people using it are never punished by the voters. So I am calling bullshit on that and on the need for conservatism to become conciliatory and compromising.

Cheesestick

“The situation is just as it has been with negative advertising. 90% of the people say they hate negative advertising, but they don’t. Negative advertising WORKS. The more extreme it is, the more it works.”

Completely agree w/ this. Same for all the people who supposedly are frustrated that the two sides can’t “get along and get something done” and are supposedly tired of all the fighting. And yet, what do these people watch every day on TV? Nothing but conflict, verbal & physical fighting, etc. What youtube videos get hits the fastest (well, besides kitty-therapy vids)? Fighting videos….subway smack down, bus driver beat down, etc.

So when the media goes all puritanical when, for example, Joe Wilson yells “you lie” to the president, more than half of our own side goes immediately to apology-mode. And to what end? To appeal to people who are watching women on Real Wive’s of Whatever scratch each other’s eyes out? We are worried that a meek congressman blurting out the truth is going to offend these folks? It makes no sense.

Spartacus

Two thoughts:

1) In response to the “Vote like your lady parts depend on it” e-card, I still wish the Romney campaign had come out with a e-card showing the vertiginous graph of federal debt 1900-2012, with the caption, “Vote like your a** depends on it.”

2) After the War, the GOP used to rally Union veterans with the slogan, “Vote as you shot!” (“GAR” was understood to stand not just for “Grand Army of the Republic,” but also “Generally All Republican.”) I see that the other side is now using a variant of that: “Vote as you shagged.”

Mike Devx

I like that, Spartacus: An E-Card that says “Vote like your a** depends on it.”
But the picture on my E-Card wouldn’t have been graphs. It would have been, in typical E-Card style, an image of a mother and father, their arms around three little children, all of them looking worried, and desperate, and hungry.

Give credit to the enemy when they have scored a victory against you. Don’t pretend that they attacked you with 1000% of the numbers they actually used. Don’t pick some leader on your side and assassinate their competence because you don’t like them and want to use the defeat to benefit yourself.

Give credit to the enemy for what the enemy has done well. Or just surrender in this war that people don’t want to fight.

Don’t worry about Maher. Come the True Revolution, he and others will, maybe not the first on the list, but at least the first 100 on the list to be executed.

kagey45

As I told my college-aged daughter, “If you vote like your lady parts depend on it, you end up with a douche.” Fortunately, she’s a good conservative and votes with her brain.

Charles Martel

Ymarsakar, I like the idea Robert Heinlein had in his novella, “Coventry,” which takes place after he Second American Revolution and the country is governed under a new constitution called The Compact. People who cannot abide by the Compact, which is very libertarian in substance, and think themselves as beyond the law, are exiled to Coventry, a large fenced-off section of the country that exists in a state of anarchy.

Former citizens exiled there have a choice of which weapons and provisions they’d like to bring in (up to a limit), a choice that has life-and-death consequences considering the types of people who have been sent into Coventry before. For example, you can overwhelm at first with firearms, but what happens when you run out of ammo? Or you can enter equipped with a portable camp stove and freeze-dried food, but what happens when you run out of fuel and packaged food?

Wouldn’t you just love to see our society’s Best and Brightest—Krugman, Matthews, Holder, Pelosi, Brian Williams, Obama, Biden, Stewart/Leibowitz, the professoriate exiled to a place where they would have ample opportunity to begin society anew on their elevated and enlightened terms? The rest of us could point cameras within and enjoy the spectacle as our moral superiors quickly degenerated into a creaky, arthritic version of “Lord of the Flies.”

Mike Devx

Charles M, I really enjoyed #28. Another Heinlein fan. Remember that in his Future History, before we get Coventry, we get “The Crazy Years”. Cultural and political chaos sweeping the country. Think the Occupy Movement then increase by 100X. All those people sweeping madly back and forth across the nation with no self-control.

For some reason, I *really* want to see Paul Krugman (aka The Ferret) exiled to Coventy. I want a camera to follow him around, and I would subscribe for a premium price.

By the way, have our noble overlords, who want the government to do EVERYTHING for us, managed to get electricity, power and heat to those suffering people in New York and New Jersey yet. They’re all so good at the basic responsibilities of government, it surely makes sense to entrust them with EVERYTHING, doesn’t it?

Political power is mostly about resources. Whoever controls the resources controls you, because you don’t have much choice but to be a slave when all the food and firepower is in the hands of evil tyrannical Utopian cultists that believe in a perfect humanity, that they will make, irregardless of how many slaves have to be sacrificed.

America was founded on certain principles which closely aligned with the reason why Socrates told the Athenian assembly to kill him, if they really thought what he was doing was wrong. The Athenian assembly thought they could humble Socrates and make him tow the political line in not talking about Sparta or some other thing the Athenian ruling members disliked, so they thought they could scare him with the death penalty. It ended up being a real one, and few of the truly educated philosophers have forgotten exactly who did what to whom, even after such a long time.

The reason why evil causes decay and entropy, which leads to chaos and destruction, is because you cannot sustain it. Evil can take resources, but cannot produce it easily in replacement. Evil can force good and wise individuals, like Socrates, to die, or assassinate the character of people like Bush or Palin, but they can’t do the opposite of creating wise individuals or good individuals or even law abiding individuals. Thus much like a parasite that kills its host, the parasite will die when the host dies. While that’s perfectly fine for a generation that begins and ends in 24 hours, that’s a little bit difficult for humans to live by as an ethical code of conduct.

By allowing the parasite to continue to live, the host dies faster. So the choice Socrates made was to make the state kill him, in order to expose evil for evil, and let evil take its just rewards and Socrates will take his just rewards after death, whatever may await, because it’s better than the Athenian assembly. Even then, the vote was around 51-60% for, 40% against. A somewhat similar decision to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, although more practical because he actually did it, whereas Ayn Rand only postulated a non-existent utopia. Socrates’ student, Plato, thus was poisoned against democracy by that experience and much of Plato’s views somehow passed down to some Europeans settling in America 2 thousand years later.

One reason why there was so much resistance against women voting and people without land voting, because the worry amongst the FOunding Fathers wasn’t equal representation, but whether the people representing and voting, were rapists and murderers, or self-disciplined citizens looking out for the common good. That dividing line, is not as hard to cross as many think.

I think the primary reason the Democrats like to generate anti-American hatred is mostly because they need to find a foreign enemy for the masses to hate. They can’t act like Hitler, fascism, or the Soviets, because they don’t really care about hating some outside foreign group, so they settle on old, ancient, white America. Which they’re going to destroy anyways since the Constitution is in their way.

However, this is just a smoke screen, a magician trick, because the loyal Leftist follower loves American bureaucracy and political deals. The hatred against Old America was simply a means to an end, not a philosophical position based upon ethics, that they use to get rid of the Constitution to pave way for the transformation of America into a proto fascist state. A lot of people have guilt, weakness, hate, and envy in their hearts, so the Left know that they must direct it against the enemies of the Left, or else the mob will direct it against the Left and their Democrat allies.

The funny thing about this is that it tends to generate race wars, civil wars, and wars based upon factionalism (teachers vs unions vs parents vs students vs blacks vs gays vs feminists vs mothers vs relationship gurus). This factionalistic strife is only held in check by US law, power, threats, coercion, firepower, and politics. I do truly wonder if the Left realizes that they cannot keep all these competing interests loyal to them, after their take over of America is finished. Nor will the rest of us, with lethal force being gathered to protect or assassinate whatever needs to be protected or killed, going to be easily eliminated.

Writing this blog is a labor of love. However, if you'd like to donate money for my efforts, please feel free to do so: